Gender, complexity, and science for all: Systemizing and its impact on motivation to learn science for different science subjects

Abstract

The present study is based on a large cross‐cultural study, which showed that a systemizing cognition type has a high impact on motivation to learn science, while the impact of gender is only indirect thorough systemizing. The present study uses the same structural equation model as in the cross‐cultural study and separately tests it for physics, chemistry, and biology. The model was confirmed for physics and chemistry, but not for biology. This is interpreted as empirical evidence for a cognitive difference between the learning of hard sciences (like physics and chemistry) and life sciences (like biology) that reflects an epistemological difference between ordered (linear) and complex (non‐linear) systems. It is concluded that a more prominent inclusion of complex issues into science teaching could motivate low and average systemizers, independent of their gender, for science learning, that is, could be a key to science for all. Thus, there is a mutual benefit between important 21st century's issues of science teaching and the need to foster students’ motivation to learn science. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 55: 147–171, 2018

Opinions about STEM content and classroom experiences as predictors of upper secondary school students' career aspirations to become researchers or teachers

“…These were formed as constructs assembled from general opinions on a discipline (subjG), its school content (subjES, subjSS), and classroom experiences (subjTES, subjTSS). Our tentative assumption was that the STEM subjects Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Technics and Technology, and Informatics are entities, each with its body of knowledge taught as part of varied teaching cultures and practices (Zeyer, ). Therefore, we did not take them as an amalgam but instead formed second‐order variables as a construct of opinion about the content and classroom experiences at different school levels.…”

“…The factors can be broadly classified as gender, personality, structural variables, and curriculum variables (Trumper, ), the last of which falls within the scope of the present study. Because of the general scope of the study, with its orientation toward content and classroom experiences in STEM subjects, we did not test our models separately by gender (Baram‐Tsabari & Yarden, ; Fredricks, Hofkens, Wang, Mortenson, & Scott, ; Zeyer, ) or any other personal characteristics.…”

Science|Environment|Health – the emergence of a new pedagogy of complex living systems

“…Conversely, research has shown that the lack of addressing empathic cognition in science classrooms contributes to low motivation among many students, particularly females (e.g., Zeyer, 2017). Therefore, it has been suggested that there are benefits from the intrinsic involvement of the human factor in S|E|H issues in order to 'include empathy more seriously and consistently, but with due caution, in science learning' (Zeyer & Dillon, 2019, p. 297).…”

Empathisierer und Systematisierer im Vorschulalter. Eine Fragebogen- und Videostudie zur Motivation, sich mit Naturphänomenen zu beschäftigen

“…Mit Zeyer (2017) wurde für den naturwissenschaftlichen Bereich davon ausgegangen, dass dieser Unterricht im Sinne der "Science for the best systemizers" ist, weil er im Sinne der beschriebenen "predictional control" (vgl. Baron-Cohen et al, 2003) danach vorgeht, zu vorgegebenen Experimenten Vermutungen aufzustellen und diese zu prüfen.…”

“…Wie in Kapitel 2.2.4 dargelegt, wird inzwischen eher Abstand von der Berechnung des Brain Types genommen, da nur die Höhe des SQ-Wertes für die Motivation, sich mit Naturwissenschaften zu beschäftigen, ausschlaggebend sein soll(vgl. Svedholm-Häkkinen & Lindeman, 2016;Zeyer, 2017). Um die in dieser Studie erreichten Werte aber mit den in der Literatur angegebenen vergleichen zu können, wurden die Brain Types der getesteten Kinder ermittelt.…”